User talk:SpamwiseFamgee/Primary succession

Check grammar and copy edit. I liked how you integrated your contributions throughout the article. You may benefit from changing the organization. Ex. moving the example about Juniperus and Quercus to occurrences/examples instead of the introduction. The examples you selected are very good, though. If you can link more Wikipedia pages, that would look very official. Good references though. Overall great article!

Peer Review
Great flow and I liked your writing style! I would maybe move the Grand Bend study to a separate section to keep the introduction more general. Other parts of the article could be better separated and organized so readers know when you are introducing a new sub-topic of primary succession. Also with the Grand Bend study, I think you could more clearly differentiate primary and secondary succession by stating which species falls under each category. It was vaguely suggested at but explicitly saying it would make it easier to understand. I appreciated how you emphasized important results from the example studies you included, which was helpful to have. The example studies applied the ecological concepts to the natural, real world which was useful to include!

Samanthali123 (talk) 21:26, 2 December 2021 (UTC) Sam

peer review
I like the detail you have in your examples and your explanations for why they are significant. I think the Grand Bend section doesn't fit in the lead section--it seems like a specific example, and I can't really see why it why it would be something crucial to know about primary succession. Your other examples are interesting and add to the article. The last paragraph about species diversity seems more general though and doesn't appear to reference any location in particular, so perhaps it would be better in another section, unless you meant to refer to a specific place, in which I think you should mention that. It would also be nice for some terms like r selected to be linked to other Wikipedia pages. Bucketkitty (talk) 07:36, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

peer review
This article was a great expansion on what was already written and provided many case studies. This was helpful for my understanding of the topic and helped illustrate the different facets of primary succession. The most major change that I would propose is to move the Grand Bend case study to the examples section. In the lead, after the first two paragraphs, would be the perfect place to illustrate the general pathway of primary succession (including definitions for pioneer and climax species within the context of k and r species). You could even insert a diagram that shows this pathway. In general, the content was presented neutrally, but I would steer clear from phrases like “this is important…” or “importantly.” These kinds of phrases appear throughout your additions and make the content appear more biased than it actually is. Many of the sources are older (from 1974, 1993, 2003, etc.). I would be slightly wary of this. See if you can include any current studies or research on the topic. I would suggest that you include some before and after photos for the case studies. In terms of your sentences, I would suggest reading them out loud. There were some places where I thought commas were missing or the sentences got a little unwieldy. In terms of more specific changes, I would make it more clear that primary succession occurs after disturbances when all that is left is a mineral substrate, whereas secondary succession starts when some organics/soil are left behind. From the lead and Grand Bend sections, it sounded like you were saying that primary succession triggers secondary succession. I would refrain from calling fires, floods, etc. smaller disturbances and opt for “lower intensity.” I would also avoid calling primary succession a series of “random events.” Overall, great job. Ahm248 (talk) 10:20, 3 December 2021 (UTC)Anna Rose Marion